The "honest" photographer...(?)

Photo blog by NY Times photo equipment reporter/analyst....

http://pogue.blogs.nyt​imes.com …S-0510-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click

The 6 pages of comments are more fun....

This doesn't contribute to the discussion but you mentioned the comments and I had to look..

The article received 24 comments in one minute!

Who cares? I don't see what the big hubbub is. Whether the photog selected the settings or not, that's still the settings that got the shot. I couldn't give a rat's behind either way...if you're trying to replicate a shot/learn something about how certain settings affect your shot, the numbers are what matter. I do, however, agree with him on the outtakes...those were always helpful.

i find it amusing anyone bothered to comment at all on a nytimes article.

Well I guess we should stop using light meters and shutters, lets go back to remove the lens cap and put it back on when you think enough light has reached the film. Now thats true photography very old school.

I didn't have time to read the whole thing - my yard and clogged drains beckon - but the first comment made me chuckle: "I can't see any reason to disagree with this. Isn't truth at the center of all great art?"

What does the one have to do with the other?

Sure, art can be truthful or not, but art can also be appreciated for it's own sake without the need to delve into inner meaning or other explanations. Much to-do about nothing ....

ImMikeTran wrote in post #10223977
The article received 24 comments in one minute!

I think all those comments were just approved at that time

sapearl wrote in post #10226235
I didn't have time to read the whole thing - my yard and clogged drains beckon - but the first comment made me chuckle: "I can't see any reason to disagree with this. Isn't truth at the center of all great art?"

What does the one have to do with the other?

Sure, art can be truthful or not, but art can also be appreciated for it's own sake without the need to delve into inner meaning or other explanations. Much to-do about nothing ....

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

more info = more helpful = I like the idea.

I agree that having bad exposures along with the good one, including all the info for each shot, would be helpful to a lot of people.

But I hardly see how it matters whether the camera calculated some (or all) of the settings. A good exposure is a good exposure, and knowing the conditions and the camera settings can help someone learn how to anticipate a similar scenario.

That guy is just an uppity jerk.

I guess the photographer also needs to mention whether they set the focus distance so <whatever>, or the camera "calculated" the focus distance (via autofocus )

A BIG part of photography is choosing the scene/light/compositio​n, so if someone stumbles upon a great scene/light, and manages to frame a beautiful shot, but relies on the AUTO mode to properly capture the scene, does it make the photograph any less "worthy" ?

I find the photographer's thesis somewhat elitist.

The interesting question is "Why the insistence in showing the photographers settings?" The feeling I got from the article was that it was to discredit the photographer if "auto" settings were used? Does that make the image of a lesser quality?
I think that showing the info on a particular image can be used as a learning tool for the folks not familiar with photography ("Oh, THATS how they did that"). Any photographer looks at an image and pretty much knows how it was done.
A beautiful image is just that.... a beautiful image.
Now, addressing the "Auto vs manual" argument: I come from old school photography where my cameras didn't have any auto features, no metering in the camera and required the photographer have knowledge or the results were less than acceptable. For the longest time, after we all changed to digital, I was a staunch supporter of shooting fully manual. Almost to the point where I felt that someone using an auto feature was less than a photographer. But then I realized that I had mashed potatoes for brains and was being pedantic. A blowhard, a buffoon. With today's technology, using the auto features in a camera allows the photographer to concentrate on the other aspects of the image. It doesn't degrade the creativity of an image, as a matter of fact, it enhances it.
So from one who use to be a "Manual or die" meatball, I now use AV and TV frequently and my images thank me.

images by Paul wrote in post #10226564
With today's technology, using the auto features in a camera allows the photographer to concentrate on the other aspects of the image. It doesn't degrade the creativity of an image, as a matter of fact, it enhances it.

Now here is something I can heartily agree with.

Understanding how to arrive at a proper exposure without relying on a mini-computer is important knowledge. But constantly making those calculations siphons off "brain power" that could otherwise be used for composition and aesthetics. And at least for me, that's what photography is about. I love to geek out about all the technical stuff, but at the end of the day it's all about trying to capture the essence of a scene.

The last time I read David Pogue he was obsessing about some irrelevant minutiae of early Macintosh computers. It's good to see that he has found a new hobby... <rolls eyes>